Mothering Forum banner
1 - 1 of 1 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,715 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
THE study is out...and my goodness look at the results. C-section rate 3.7%, urgent transfers 3.4%, breastfeeding at 6 weeks 95.8%. Guess what HOMEBIRTH IS SAFE. WooHoo (like we didn't know already
)

This is a great study.

V.

Grassroots Network Message 506012
> CPM 2000 Study Published! (long message)
>
> Dear Friends,
>
> The long-awaited study of home births attended by CPMs during the
year
> 2000 is finally here!
>
> "Outcomes of planned home births with certified professional
midwives:
> large prospective study in North America." Kenneth C Johnson, senior
> epidemiologist, Betty-Anne Daviss, project manager. BMJ
2005;330:1416
> (18 June).
>
> The BMJ has published the paper on-line. Read it at
> http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/conte...7505/1416?ehom
>
> Published in the June 18 issue of the North America British Medical
> Journal, the study found that "planned home births for low risk women
> in the United States are associated with similar safety and less
> medical intervention as low risk hospital births" according to the
BMJ
> press release (see below).
>
> Co-author Ken Johnson has stated that this is the largest study of
its
> kind at this time. The study is prospective (initial data submitted
> before the birth took place, so no births could be "left out") and
> includes data from more than 5000 births in the U.S and Canada. This
> study cannot be written off for being too small or not relevant to US
> populations and circumstances.
>
> The BMJ also has a "rapid response" feature, where readers can post
> letters about articles (comments, responses, etc.). As the BMJ
> states: "Think of Rapid Responses as electronic letters to the
> editor." On the BMJ home page www.bmj.com find "Interactions" in the
> menu list on the left, and choose "Rapid Responses" for more
> information. CfM is posting a rapid response shortly.
>
> Would you like to see your local newspaper report about this study?
> The BMJ will have posted their press release to wire services, but
> this study may not be considered hot news by very many newspapers.
> However, midwifery advocates all over the country can help get news
> attention on this study, especially if your state is working on
> midwifery legislation. You may even be able to use this study as a
> way to bring a fledgling group and its work to positive public
> attention. The best situation is when someone already has a
> relationship with a news reporter at your local newspaper (you have
> talked with them before, you have given them any news tips, etc.).
> Call up your contact and talk with them about this study and its
> relevance in your community, offer them the BMJ press release (see
> below) and additional information from author Betty-Anne Daviss (see
> below). If you have a local birth network or birth-related advocacy
> group of any kind, make sure to let the reporter know how the study
is
> relevant to your group and what it is doing. If you don't already
have
> a contact at your local paper, you could use this study as a reason
to
> pick up the phone and begin a relationship.
>
> When you read the study (it is not difficult to understand), you will
> find many points that can be made; here are a few to start with:
> · The study demonstrates unequivocally that for "low risk"
> mothers, home birth attended by a CPM results in outcomes comparable
> to low risk births in the hospital - ie CPM-attended planned home
> births are safe for mothers and babies.
> · Despite the fact that the midwives in the study included
> many who were not well-integrated into the health care system,
mothers
> and babies that did need medical attention were appropriately
> identified and transported to hospitals and got the care they needed;
> otherwise, we would not see the good outcomes that are comparable to
> hospital birth outcomes.
> · Substantially fewer interventions were performed on mothers
> planning home births than on comparable mothers giving birth in
> hospitals, which suggests that many of those interventions are
> unnecessary. Such unnecessary interventions are costly and are
> associated with increased complications for mothers and babies.
>
> Overall, the study shows that for healthy women, a planned home birth
> with a trained midwife (ie, a CPM), is a safe and reasonable choice
> for maternity care, supported by the evidence. If maternity care is
> "scientific" women everywhere should have access to midwives and
> out-of-hospital birth.
>
> You are welcome to post this grassroots network message in its
> entirety to other e-lists you may be on. You may also forward either
> or both of the press releases to anyone.
>
> Sincerely,
> Susan Hodges, "gatekeeper"
>
>
> Press Release from BMJ
>
> Planned home births in the United States are safe, say researchers
>
> Outcomes of planned home births with certified professional midwives:
> large prospective study in North America BMJ Volume 330, pp [to be
> added]
>
> Planned home births for low risk women in the United States are
> associated
> with similar safety and less medical intervention as low risk
hospital
> births, finds a study in this week's BMJ.
>
> Midwives involved with home births are often not well integrated into
> the
> healthcare system in the United States and evidence on the safety of
> such
> home births is limited.
>
> In the largest study of its kind internationally to date, researchers
> analysed over 5000 home births involving certified professional
> midwives across the United States and Canada in 2000. Outcomes and
> medical interventions were compared with those of low risk hospital
> births.
>
> Rates of medical intervention, such as epidural, forceps and
caesarean
> section, were lower for planned home births than for low risk
hospital
> births. Planned home births also had a low mortality rate during
> labour and delivery, similar to that in most studies of low risk
> hospital births in North America.
>
> A high degree of safety and maternal satisfaction were reported, and
> over 87% of mothers and babies did not require transfer to hospital.
>
> "Our study of certified professional midwives suggests that they
> achieve good outcomes among low risk women without routine use of
> expensive hospital interventions," say the authors. "This evidence
> supports the American Public Health Association's recommendation to
> increase access to out of hospital maternity care services with
direct
> entry midwives in the United States."
>
> Contact:
> Kenneth Johnson, Senior Epidemiologist, Surveillance and Risk
> Assessment
> Division, Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Control, Public
> Health
> Agency of Canada, Ottawa, Canada
> Tel: +1 613 957 0339
> To arrange an interview, please call Aggie Adamczyk: +1 613 941 8189
> (Public Health Agency media contact)
> Email: [email protected]
>
> Betty-Anne Daviss, Project Manager, FIGO Safe Motherhood/Newborn
> Initiative, Housed at The Society of Gynaecologists and Obstetricians
> of Canada, 780 Echo Drive, Ottowa, Canada
> tel: +1 800 561 2416 OR +1 613 730 4192 Ext. 263
> Email: [email protected]
>
>
> Further Information from co-author Betty-Anne Daviss:
>
> The British Medical Journal has embargoed a press release until
> tomorrow (up on their website at bmj.org) regarding the largest study
> ever done of its kind on home birth. What the press release does not
> point out is that it was conducted by two Canadian researchers who
> live in Ottawa -- a Canadian epidemiologist and a Canadian midwife.
>
> It was carried out on all clients having a delivery with a certified
> professional midwife for a given time period and reports on 5, 418
> births.
>
> The majority of the births were done by American midwives but
Canadian
> midwives were also included in the study.
>
> The study shows that -- if you aren't a high risk Mom carrying twins,
> having a premature baby or baby coming bottom first, all of which can
> be judged ahead of time -- your chance of having a healthy normal
safe
> delivery are the same whether you plan a home or hospital birth.
> However, if you choose the home birth your intervention rates will be
> a tenth to a half of what they would be in hospital, compared to
> figures of the same time period from the National Health Institute of
> the US.
>
> The study is groundbreaking because former studies have been
> criticized for not being big enough, for not being able to
distinguish
> between planned or unplanned births, and for being retrospective,
that
> is only looking at old records as opposed to engaging health
> professionals in the requirement of registering births they were
going
> to do and then having to account for all outcomes. As well, over 500
> mothers were phoned to verify whether what the midwives said at the
> births actually happened.
>
> The study suggests that legislators and policy makers should pay
> attention to the fact that this study supports the American Public
> Health Association resolution to increase out of hospital births done
> by direct entry midwives.
>
> The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists still
opposes
> home birth. The SOGC has written a statement acknowledging that women
> have the right to choose their place of birth.
>
> Betty-Anne Daviss, Registered Midwife
> co-principal investigator of the study
> I am at the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada
> meeting in Quebec City. You could reach me through the SOGC media
> person Kelly Nolan at (613)730-4192 but it appears her cell has not
> been working well and she is involved in another story, on several
> representatives from low resource
> countries visiting Canada to meet regarding an ongoing partnership
> they have with the SOGC. I will be registering at the Delta Hotel in
> Quebec City here some time later today, but will come and check my
> emails every hour or so. This email address may be the best way to
get
> in touch. If you leave a number I can phone you if you are interested
> in the story.
>
> You can also reach Ken Johnson at (613) 957-0339 during the day, and
> (613) 730-0282 at night.
 
1 - 1 of 1 Posts
Top